a) What are the expectations for the outcome of Rio+20, and what are the concrete proposals in this regard, including views on a possible structure of the Outcome document?

Rio +20 Inputs for Compilation Document
21st Century clusters with transformative solutions contributing to a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication

Below is the input from the 21st Century Clusters.For more details, background and cases
please see: http://transformative-solutions.net/

Background
Rio+20 present a unique opportunity to shift perspective from problems to opportunities and
from incremental improvements in existing systems to transformative solutions (i.e. solutions
that provide the services society needs in totally new ways). Structures, legislations and
methodologies to identify, encourage and measure incremental improvements among
polluting industries already exist. Rio+20 could be the global turning point where structures,
legislations and methodologies are introduced and encouraged to identify, encourage and
measure transformative solutions. A clear solution agenda would encourage new clusters and
networks as well as a new generation of entrepreneurs to step forward and be part of the
sustainability agenda.
With a solution agenda future generations might refer back to the conference as Rio2.0 rather
than +20. A new approach in a new millennium led by networks that see opportunities instead
of problems.
It is imperative that two decades on from the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro the discussions
on sustainable development take into account today?s societal and technology contexts. The
agenda of the last summit as well its outcome were shaped by individuals who had never seen
a webpage, sent an SMS message or used a smart phone. Back then few had anticipated the
unprecedented uptake of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and the related
socioeconomic benefits. Whereas, at the time of the Earth Summit, there were less than 100
million mobile subscribers around the world, today the number is above 5 billion. This
represents nearly four fifths of the world?s population. Around 8 trillion SMS messages will
have been sent by the end of this year.
With the emergence of the internet of things (IoS) we can expect further breakthroughs. Eight
years after Rio+20 there will most likely be around 20 billion connected devices. Society will
experience connectivity and access to information that are historically unique. Smart
buildings will become net producers of renewable energy, mobile banking will leapfrog the
need for a banking infrastructure, and e-commerce will dramatically reduce the need for
physical products and services supporting dematerialisation.
Against this technological backdrop, the world?s economy will continue to develop at a rapid
pace. China might become the world?s largest economy during the next 10 years and India
home to most people on the planet. In 2050 China will probably have more old people than
the entire population of the US. In this situation business as usual is not an option. These
developments will bring along new challenges for sustainability, calling for the need to look
beyond incremental changes in existing systems to finding new solutions.
The Earth Summit in 1992 focused a lot on end-of-pipe technologies and how companies can
reduce their own impact and improve their sustainability performance. Today we still tend to
see frameworks that address sustainability from a risk perspective. The methodologies that
have been developed predominantly focus on measuring the ?negative? impact of industry on
sustainability.

1. Expectations for the outcome of Rio+20
The following policy proposals should be reflected in the outcome documents and decisions
as the would help accelerate the uptake of transformative solutions and allow businesses to
become innovative solutions providers:
1.1 Support for exponential growth of low-carbon/resource efficient solutions
Policy makers should set acceleration targets for low-carbon/resource efficient solutions, not
technology-based in order to avoid picking winners, in order to allow exponential growth of
such solutions. Too often the exponential growth of low-carbon/resource efficient solutions is
seen as a problem as it disturbs old business solutions. Instead, we must recognize highcarbon/
resource intensive business solutions as a problem. The need for job creation and
innovation should be linked to companies with accelerated sales of low-carbon solutions.
1.2 System solutions
Policy makers should encourage integrated solutions that provide the services we need. Often,
converging trends allow for new system solutions that current regulations are undermining.
For example, improved insulation, smart lighting, and better solar PV solutions allow for
buildings that are net producers of electricity, but only if the policy framework focuses on an
ambitious use of system solutions instead of allowing small isolated improvements. As an
example, the focus in most countries is on reducing emissions instead of turning buildings
into solutions. A Global Feed-In Tariff Programme for system solutions should be considered
as a market-based mechanism to help the uptake of system solutions.
1.3 Tipping points for transformative solutions
Policy makers must identify when different incremental improvements reach the point when
they can be transformative. E.g., when a building reduces its energy use by 80% it can often
meet its energy demand from local renewable energy sources. Further reductions allow a net
positive contribution that allows for charging cars or other extra functions. Such thresholds,
e.g. 80 percent energy efficiency for buildings, should be identified as they require significant
changes in current regulations.
Increased public RD&D, in particular demonstration support, is needed to allow companies to
work in new clusters that deliver innovative service solutions when tipping points are reached.
This is key for many solar and wind applications as well as many other solutions. In particular
there is a big lack of investments in innovative solutions in the developing world since there is
so much focus on short-term cost efficiency and easy ways to measure carbon reductions in
the current system.
1.4 Supporting low-carbon/resource efficient feedback and avoiding highcarbon/
resource intensive feedback/rebound
One of the major challenges today is that most efforts for increased resource efficiency sooner
or later result in a situation in which the resources (time, natural resources and money) that
are initially saved are re-invested in ways that increase emissions and use of natural resources.

There is an urgent need to develop systems for low-carbon/resource efficient feedback, i.e., a
situation in which the savings are used for re-investments in more resource-saving solutions.
The massive current and historic subsidies that are making the current unsustainable solutions
cheaper than they should be are a major challenge that needs to be addressed. More than 500
billion dollars are used annually to directly support a high-carbon infrastructure, more than
twelve times the support for renewables. This is making it hard for transformative solution
providers to compete. The subsidies also result in a situation in which many stakeholders ?
including policy makers, academics, and media?think that low-carbon solutions are not
competitive.
1.5 Rewarding trendsetting for supply of sustainable solutions
Today companies that are leaders are not rewarded. Policy makers must create economic
incentives for low-carbon leadership and develop methodologies that allow for measurement
of such leadership. Companies helping to accelerate uptake of new technologies should be
acknowledged and rewarded in a variety of ways.1
1.6 Global collaboration for a 21st century low-carbon infrastructure
Many of the new networking solutions, such as a global network for high definition virtual
meetings, require global collaboration to overcome different standards and regulations. Very
few such initiatives exist and they are needed to accelerate the uptake of a new generation of
services that depends on information and communication technology, the most energy
efficient infrastructure humans ever have created. International action programmes must be
agreed upon for certain already identified and demonstrated solutions that are ready to roll out
large scale, e.g., energy plus housing, smart grid solutions, solar PV solutions, global
infrastructure/standards for smart meetings, etc.
1.7 Measure the use of underlying infrastructure and resource demand for different
services
Very few policies today measure or support the transformation of the underlying
infrastructure. Part of this is probably due to the fact that most emissions assessments do not
include the underlying infrastructure; or, when they do, it is separate from the solutions that
depend on them. It is time to ensure that assessments include the underlying infrastructure
whenever relevant in order to understand the difference between transformative solutions and
incremental improvements.
1.8 Carbon distance/How to transport and ?moving the sun?/ What to transport
Policy makers should not approach transport as something that should be reduced; focus
should be on zero emissions, sustainable use of natural resources and poverty reductions.
First, modal shifts should be prioritized in order to ensure that goods move with the least
amount of carbon emitted as a stepping stone toward zero emission goods transport. Second,
transport should be approached as an integrated way to ensure optimal production and
consumption systems, not as a separate sector.
1.9 From product to service
Policies should focus on the service being provided, not the old technology or old sectors that
so far have provided the service.

Transformative solutions require a shift from product to service where everything from
airplanes, cars, and books are seen for what they are, i.e., ways of providing services such as
business meetings, commuting and, reading. Today many services can be provided in
fundamentally different, and magnitudes more efficient, ways. But in order for solutions such
as video-conferencing, teleworking, and e-readers to take off, rules and regulations must be
based on services.
Public procurement could become one of the most important instruments in supporting
transformative solutions. Technology neutral policy making is one key part of this, but policy
makers also must really start with the actual service that is needed and not a sub-service that
the existing system needs. For lighting, it is important not just to ask for a better light source
(i.e., move from incandescent to CFL and then to LED), but to ask how light can be provided
in different ways, from architectural solutions to light-emitting fabric.
1.10 Multiple gains with low-carbon results
Many areas in society, health, education, art, sports, marketing, etc., have so far been almost
totally left out of the climate/environmental discussions. These sectors have a fundamental
impact on how society is structured and are significant drivers of innovation. It is important to
support initiatives in such areas that also include a climate/natural resource perspective but
also to link smart initiatives to other areas to ensure synergies.
1.11. Nanotechnology and biomimicry for the 21st Century
Instead of brute force we now have the possibility to turn a page and work with nature instead
of against it. High-Throughput Atomically Precise Manufacturing is a nanotechnology-based
tool that is in front of us and we are the first generation that can simulate this future
technology at a physical level, and use our knowledge to guide this upcoming industrial and
technical revolution in the direction we want.
In a time of growing tensions, the potential to gather the world around a common challenge
should not be ignored. So much of the focus today is on short-term gains (political and
economic) that nanotechnology will be difficult to fit into existing structures, but this could
also turn out to be a strength. New clusters could be established and new ways of
collaboration could be developed. History is the only ultimate judge, but for anyone claiming
global leadership in the 21st century, regardless of whether the focus is on poverty,
environmental challenges, climate change, innovation or economic development, the
prospects for transformative, nanotechnology-based developments must have a central role.
The conference in Rio could be the starting point for a new conversation, and for the
generation of new clusters and collaboration. At the center of this new conversation about the
future will be scenarios of unprecedented, disruptive technological change. It is up to us to
focus on what we think is most important, and hopefully this report can inspire action in one
of the most important areas of our time.
The outcome document should ensure that a global task force is created that can help with two
things. First, to facilitate increased collaboration between different groups of nanotechnology
researchers (even if they do not call them that themselves). Second, identify gaps in current
research that needs to be addressed in order to enable sustainable implementation of High-
Throughput Atomically Precise Manufacturing.

2. Possible structure of the Outcome document
2.1 Ensure a sector/service approach in the outcome document
In the 21st century is an urgent need to focus on clusters and companies as solution providers.
A shift beyond the sector approach is called for, where the focus is on the services needed in
society. Wherever possible any approach based on sectors, investment guidelines, policy
frameworks, rankings, etc., should add a service perspective. While a sector perspective can
be helpful for incremental improvements it seldom helps develop or encourage transformative
solutions. For most sustainable solutions collaboration is needed between companies from
different sectors in order to challenge the way services are provided today.
Introducing a sector/service matrix as the standard approach could help support a shift toward
companies as solution providers and ensure that transformative solutions can be identified

[UNDESA/DSD: Please download the original document to see this table]

A sector perspective can encourage incremental improvements in existing systems (doing
things right) instead of encouraging a sustainable way of providing the things we need (doing
the right things). By introducing a sector/service matrix, tensions within and between sectors
become easier to understand.
Inviting airline companies to discuss strategies will work fine if improvements in airplanes
are the expected outcome, but inviting stakeholders to discuss sustainable meetings would
require travel/ meeting agencies, video conference providers, and the airline industry to
discuss the best way to provide users with services.
Using a sector/service matrix can also help identify different clusters that may depend on each
other and may not always be interested in change. Coal and oil companies can discuss
marginal improvements with construction and car companies, but if the focus shifts to
sustainable commuting or smart buildings all of a sudden new clusters can emerge and some
companies can become less important (or even irrelevant).

[UNDESA/DSD: Please download the original document to see this table]

Based on a sector/service matrix it is possible to develop what could be called a ?carbon
performance of services.? This carbon performance could be used to compare different ways
of providing light, of moving goods one km, of having a comfortable indoor temperature, etc.
This could at a later stage be used to provide Energy/Carbon Service Performance Standards,
i.e., standards on carbon emissions for providing a service. Such a standard could spur
technology development and create space for new policy instruments.

2.2 Establish guidelines for calculations that allow companies to report positive
contributions when they provide transformative solutions
The differences in calculating the positive contributions are significant and clearly
demonstrate the need for an agreed upon framework for measuring and reporting positive
contributions. Two aspects are particularly important to address.
First, the underlying infrastructure. When transformative solutions are introduced, they very
often depend on a totally different underlying infrastructure compared with the old way of
providing the service. Comparing virtual meetings with air travel requires us to not only
understand the difference between video conference equipment and a plane, it also requires us
to understand the difference between fiber optic cables and base stations on the one hand and
airports, hotels, and roads connecting airplanes with cities, on the other. Similarly, ships and
planes are not only very different in terms of the carbon needed by the different vessels to
travel a certain distance, a port with renewable energy production is part of one kind of
infrastructure and an airport contributing to increased car travel and urban sprawl is part of
another.
Second, the dynamic effects, the way consumption of different solutions results in
investments that accelerate further reductions of emissions or investments that result in
increased emissions.
b) What are the comments, if any, on existing proposals: e.g., a green economy roadmap, framework for action, sustainable development goals, a revitalized global partnership for sustainable development, or others?

These proposals are good in their own way, but they approach the challenges almost exactly
in the same way as 20 years ago. This is also necessary, but in addition to that focus needs to
be on transformative solutions. They also approach partnerships as collaborations between
existing stakeholders rather than new networks.
Looking at the input so much of it is influenced by the same groups that shaped the Rio
agenda and with the same kind of tools. This is valuable input and important documents, but it
is unlikely to generate any new energy, networks or initiatives beyond what current
institutions are already working on. If nothing else the Rio+20 conference should allow 5% of
the resources to be spent on new ideas and areas, and these should be decided though new
tools and networks that are not linked to existing business groups, UN bodies, NGOs, etc. The
world is changing fast and new ideas should be promoted.
c) What are the views on implementation and on how to close the implementation gap, which relevant actors are envisaged as being involved (Governments, specific Major Groups, UN system, IFIs, etc.);

N/A
d) What specific cooperation mechanisms, partnership arrangements or other implementation tools are envisaged and what is the relevant time frame for the proposed decisions to be reached and actions to be implemented?

N/A

Specific Elements

a) Objective of the Conference: To secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assessing the progress to date and remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development and addressing new and emerging challenges.

Contributions could include possible sectoral priorities (e.g., (e.g., energy, food security and sustainable agriculture, technology transfer, water, oceans, sustainable urbanization, sustainable consumption and production, natural disaster preparedness and climate change adaptation, biodiversity, etc.) and sectoral initiatives that contribute to integrate the three pillars of sustainable development could be launched and endorsed at Rio+20.

N/A
b) Green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication: views regarding how green economy can be a means to achieve sustainable development in its three dimensions, and poverty eradication; what is its potential added value; experience to date, including what has worked and how to build upon success, what are the challenges and opportunities and how to address the challenges and seize opportunities, and possible elements of an agreement in outcome document on a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication

N/A
c) Institutional framework for sustainable development: Priorities and proposals for strengthening individual pillars of sustainable development, as well as those for strengthening integration of the three pillars, at multiple levels; local, national, regional and international.

N/A
d) Any proposals for refinement of the two themes. Recall that Resolution 64/236 describes the focus of the Conference: "The focus of the Conference will include the following themes to be discussed and refined during the preparatory process: a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication and the institutional framework for sustainable development".

N/A

Full Submission

21st CENTURY CLUSTERS

Transformative solutions for Rio 2.0: Inputs for Compilation Document

A Framework for Action at Rio+20 and Beyond: October 2011

LOW CARBON LEADERS

BEYOND CARBON

Rio +20 Inputs for Compilation Document

21st Century clusters with transformative solutions contributing to a green
economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication

Below is the input from the 21st Century Clusters. For more details, background and cases
please see: http://transformative-solutions.net/

Background

Rio+20 present a unique opportunity to shift perspective from problems to opportunities and
from incremental improvements in existing systems to transformative solutions (i.e. solutions
that provide the services society needs in totally new ways). Structures, legislations and
methodologies to identify, encourage and measure incremental improvements among
polluting industries already exist. Rio+20 could be the global turning point where structures,
legislations and methodologies are introduced and encouraged to identify, encourage and
measure transformative solutions. A clear solution agenda would encourage new clusters and
networks as well as a new generation of entrepreneurs to step forward and be part of the
sustainability agenda.

With a solution agenda future generations might refer back to the conference as Rio2.0 rather
than +20. A new approach in a new millennium led by networks that see opportunities instead
of problems.

It is imperative that two decades on from the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro the discussions
on sustainable development take into account today’s societal and technology contexts. The
agenda of the last summit as well its outcome were shaped by individuals who had never seen
a webpage, sent an SMS message or used a smart phone. Back then few had anticipated the
unprecedented uptake of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and the related
socioeconomic benefits. Whereas, at the time of the Earth Summit, there were less than 100
million mobile subscribers around the world, today the number is above 5 billion. This
represents nearly four fifths of the world’s population. Around 8 trillion SMS messages will
have been sent by the end of this year.

With the emergence of the internet of things (IoS) we can expect further breakthroughs. Eight
years after Rio+20 there will most likely be around 20 billion connected devices. Society will
experience connectivity and access to information that are historically unique. Smart
buildings will become net producers of renewable energy, mobile banking will leapfrog the
need for a banking infrastructure, and e-commerce will dramatically reduce the need for
physical products and services supporting dematerialisation.

Against this technological backdrop, the world’s economy will continue to develop at a rapid
pace. China might become the world’s largest economy during the next 10 years and India
home to most people on the planet. In 2050 China will probably have more old people than
the entire population of the US. In this situation business as usual is not an option. These
developments will bring along new challenges for sustainability, calling for the need to look
beyond incremental changes in existing systems to finding new solutions.

The Earth Summit in 1992 focused a lot on end-of-pipe technologies and how companies can
reduce their own impact and improve their sustainability performance. Today we still tend to
see frameworks that address sustainability from a risk perspective. The methodologies that
have been developed predominantly focus on measuring the “negative” impact of industry on
sustainability.

1. Expectations for the outcome of Rio+20

The following policy proposals should be reflected in the outcome documents and decisions
as the would help accelerate the uptake of transformative solutions and allow businesses to
become innovative solutions providers:

1.1 Support for exponential growth of low-carbon/resource efficient solutions

Policy makers should set acceleration targets for low-carbon/resource efficient solutions, not
technology-based in order to avoid picking winners, in order to allow exponential growth of
such solutions. Too often the exponential growth of low-carbon/resource efficient solutions is
seen as a problem as it disturbs old business solutions. Instead, we must recognize high-
carbon/resource intensive business solutions as a problem. The need for job creation and
innovation should be linked to companies with accelerated sales of low-carbon solutions.

1.2 System solutions

Policy makers should encourage integrated solutions that provide the services we need. Often,
converging trends allow for new system solutions that current regulations are undermining.
For example, improved insulation, smart lighting, and better solar PV solutions allow for
buildings that are net producers of electricity, but only if the policy framework focuses on an
ambitious use of system solutions instead of allowing small isolated improvements. As an
example, the focus in most countries is on reducing emissions instead of turning buildings
into solutions. A Global Feed-In Tariff Programme for system solutions should be considered
as a market-based mechanism to help the uptake of system solutions.

1.3 Tipping points for transformative solutions

Policy makers must identify when different incremental improvements reach the point when
they can be transformative. E.g., when a building reduces its energy use by 80% it can often
meet its energy demand from local renewable energy sources. Further reductions allow a net
positive contribution that allows for charging cars or other extra functions. Such thresholds,
e.g. 80 percent energy efficiency for buildings, should be identified as they require significant
changes in current regulations.

Increased public RD&D, in particular demonstration support, is needed to allow companies to
work in new clusters that deliver innovative service solutions when tipping points are reached.
This is key for many solar and wind applications as well as many other solutions. In particular
there is a big lack of investments in innovative solutions in the developing world since there is
so much focus on short-term cost efficiency and easy ways to measure carbon reductions in
the current system.

One of the major challenges today is that most efforts for increased resource efficiency sooner
or later result in a situation in which the resources (time, natural resources and money) that
are initially saved are re-invested in ways that increase emissions and use of natural resources.
There is an urgent need to develop systems for low-carbon/resource efficient feedback, i.e., a
situation in which the savings are used for re-investments in more resource-saving solutions.

The massive current and historic subsidies that are making the current unsustainable solutions
cheaper than they should be are a major challenge that needs to be addressed. More than 500
billion dollars are used annually to directly support a high-carbon infrastructure, more than
twelve times the support for renewables. This is making it hard for transformative solution
providers to compete. The subsidies also result in a situation in which many stakeholders ?
including policy makers, academics, and media?think that low-carbon solutions are not
competitive.

1.5 Rewarding trendsetting for supply of sustainable solutions

Today companies that are leaders are not rewarded. Policy makers must create economic
incentives for low-carbon leadership and develop methodologies that allow for measurement
of such leadership. Companies helping to accelerate uptake of new technologies should be
acknowledged and rewarded in a variety of waysĻ.

1.6 Global collaboration for a 21st century low-carbon infrastructure

Many of the new networking solutions, such as a global network for high definition virtual
meetings, require global collaboration to overcome different standards and regulations. Very
few such initiatives exist and they are needed to accelerate the uptake of a new generation of
services that depends on information and communication technology, the most energy
efficient infrastructure humans ever have created. International action programmes must be
agreed upon for certain already identified and demonstrated solutions that are ready to roll out
large scale, e.g., energy plus housing, smart grid solutions, solar PV solutions, global
infrastructure/standards for smart meetings, etc.

1.7 Measure the use of underlying infrastructure and resource demand for different
services

Very few policies today measure or support the transformation of the underlying
infrastructure. Part of this is probably due to the fact that most emissions assessments do not
include the underlying infrastructure; or, when they do, it is separate from the solutions that
depend on them. It is time to ensure that assessments include the underlying infrastructure
whenever relevant in order to understand the difference between transformative solutions and
incremental improvements.

1.8 Carbon distance/How to transport and “moving the sun”/ What to transport

Policy makers should not approach transport as something that should be reduced; focus
should be on zero emissions, sustainable use of natural resources and poverty reductions.

First, modal shifts should be prioritized in order to ensure that goods move with the least
amount of carbon emitted as a stepping stone toward zero emission goods transport. Second,
transport should be approached as an integrated way to ensure optimal production and
consumption systems, not as a separate sector.

1.9 From product to service

Policies should focus on the service being provided, not the old technology or old sectors that
so far have provided the service.

Transformative solutions require a shift from product to service where everything from
airplanes, cars, and books are seen for what they are, i.e., ways of providing services such as
business meetings, commuting and, reading. Today many services can be provided in
fundamentally different, and magnitudes more efficient, ways. But in order for solutions such
as video-conferencing, teleworking, and e-readers to take off, rules and regulations must be
based on services.

Public procurement could become one of the most important instruments in supporting
transformative solutions. Technology neutral policy making is one key part of this, but policy
makers also must really start with the actual service that is needed and not a sub-service that
the existing system needs. For lighting, it is important not just to ask for a better light source
(i.e., move from incandescent to CFL and then to LED), but to ask how light can be provided
in different ways, from architectural solutions to light-emitting fabric.

1.10 Multiple gains with low-carbon results

Many areas in society, health, education, art, sports, marketing, etc., have so far been almost
totally left out of the climate/environmental discussions. These sectors have a fundamental
impact on how society is structured and are significant drivers of innovation. It is important to
support initiatives in such areas that also include a climate/natural resource perspective but
also to link smart initiatives to other areas to ensure synergies.

1.11. Nanotechnology and biomimicry for the 21st Century

Instead of brute force we now have the possibility to turn a page and work with nature instead
of against it. High-Throughput Atomically Precise Manufacturing is a nanotechnology-based
tool that is in front of us and we are the first generation that can simulate this future
technology at a physical level, and use our knowledge to guide this upcoming industrial and
technical revolution in the direction we want.

In a time of growing tensions, the potential to gather the world around a common challenge
should not be ignored. So much of the focus today is on short-term gains (political and
economic) that nanotechnology will be difficult to fit into existing structures, but this could
also turn out to be a strength. New clusters could be established and new ways of
collaboration could be developed. History is the only ultimate judge, but for anyone claiming
global leadership in the 21st century, regardless of whether the focus is on poverty,
environmental challenges, climate change, innovation or economic development, the
prospects for transformative, nanotechnology-based developments must have a central role.

The conference in Rio could be the starting point for a new conversation, and for the
generation of new clusters and collaboration. At the center of this new conversation about the
future will be scenarios of unprecedented, disruptive technological change. It is up to us to
focus on what we think is most important, and hopefully this report can inspire action in one
of the most important areas of our time.

The outcome document should ensure that a global task force is created that can help with two
things. First, to facilitate increased collaboration between different groups of nanotechnology
researchers (even if they do not call them that themselves). Second, identify gaps in current
research that needs to be addressed in order to enable sustainable implementation of High-
Throughput Atomically Precise Manufacturing.

2. Possible structure of the Outcome document

2.1 Ensure a sector/service approach in the outcome document

In the 21st century is an urgent need to focus on clusters and companies as solution providers.
A shift beyond the sector approach is called for, where the focus is on the services needed in
society. Wherever possible any approach based on sectors, investment guidelines, policy
frameworks, rankings, etc., should add a service perspective. While a sector perspective can
be helpful for incremental improvements it seldom helps develop or encourage transformative
solutions. For most sustainable solutions collaboration is needed between companies from
different sectors in order to challenge the way services are provided today.

Introducing a sector/service matrix as the standard approach could help support a shift toward
companies as solution providers and ensure that transformative solutions can be identified

A sector perspective can encourage incremental improvements in existing systems (doing
things right) instead of encouraging a sustainable way of providing the things we need (doing
the right things). By introducing a sector/service matrix, tensions within and between sectors
become easier to understand.

Inviting airline companies to discuss strategies will work fine if improvements in airplanes
are the expected outcome, but inviting stakeholders to discuss sustainable meetings would
require travel/ meeting agencies, video conference providers, and the airline industry to
discuss the best way to provide users with services.

Using a sector/service matrix can also help identify different clusters that may depend on each
other and may not always be interested in change. Coal and oil companies can discuss
marginal improvements with construction and car companies, but if the focus shifts to
sustainable commuting or smart buildings all of a sudden new clusters can emerge and some
companies can become less important (or even irrelevant).

Based on a sector/service matrix it is possible to develop what could be called a “carbon
performance of services.” This carbon performance could be used to compare different ways
of providing light, of moving goods one km, of having a comfortable indoor temperature, etc.
This could at a later stage be used to provide Energy/Carbon Service Performance Standards,
i.e., standards on carbon emissions for providing a service. Such a standard could spur
technology development and create space for new policy instruments.

The differences in calculating the positive contributions are significant and clearly
demonstrate the need for an agreed upon framework for measuring and reporting positive
contributions. Two aspects are particularly important to address.

First, the underlying infrastructure. When transformative solutions are introduced, they very
often depend on a totally different underlying infrastructure compared with the old way of
providing the service. Comparing virtual meetings with air travel requires us to not only
understand the difference between video conference equipment and a plane, it also requires us
to understand the difference between fiber optic cables and base stations on the one hand and
airports, hotels, and roads connecting airplanes with cities, on the other. Similarly, ships and
planes are not only very different in terms of the carbon needed by the different vessels to
travel a certain distance, a port with renewable energy production is part of one kind of
infrastructure and an airport contributing to increased car travel and urban sprawl is part of
another.

Second, the dynamic effects, the way consumption of different solutions results in
investments that accelerate further reductions of emissions or investments that result in
increased emissions.

2.3 What are the comments, if any, on existing proposals: e.g., a green economy
roadmap, framework for action, sustainable development goals, a revitalized global
Partnership for sustainable development, or others?

These proposals are good in their own way, but they approach the challenges almost exactly
in the same way as 20 years ago. This is also necessary, but in addition to that focus needs to
be on transformative solutions. They also approach partnerships as collaborations between
existing stakeholders rather than new networks.

Looking at the input so much of it is influenced by the same groups that shaped the Rio
agenda and with the same kind of tools. This is valuable input and important documents, but it
is unlikely to generate any new energy, networks or initiatives beyond what current
institutions are already working on. If nothing else the Rio+20 conference should allow 5% of
the resources to be spent on new ideas and areas, and these should be decided though new
tools and networks that are not linked to existing business groups, UN bodies, NGOs, etc. The
world is changing fast and new ideas should be promoted.